[Credendovidis]

What "miracle" did those Japanese scientists perform? Their methodology is public knowledge and they want the scientific community to know of what they did.

The Japanese scientists did not perform any miracles. All they did was using an artificial DNA method to store data as compact as possible.
The ICR misused that Japanese research and the problems they experienced as an argument that for natural DNA a supra-natural "god-creator" had to be in existence. A nonsensical line of argumentation, of course, and reason for this topic.

:rolleyes:

·

[Credendovidis]

Sassy - you never cease to amaze me with your unscientific outlook considering you professed 'career.'

Hear, hear, hear!!

:rolleyes:

·

[Capuchin]

No Its not ridiculous.....bacterium can divide every 20 minute which means if the conditions are right, one bacterium can multiply into billions of bacteria within 24 hours so because bacteria can multiply so quickly, this can be used to simulate eons of time. In just 20 minutes bacterium can have upto 2.5 million genarations.

I'm confused here. Maybe someone can help to explain to me. If bacteria divide every 20 minutes, then how can they produce 2.5 million generations in 20 minutes? Surely they produce only one?

[Credendovidis]

Maybe someone can help to explain to me.

Capuchin : careful : you are addressing a student in biology here who claimed to have a degree in biology. Do you perhaps doubt her infallibility in biological matters?

:D

·

[Capuchin]

Capuchin : careful : you are addressing a student in biology here who claimed to have a degree in biology. Do you perhaps doubt her infallibility in biological matters?
:D
·

I'm more bothered about pointing out the iffiness of what she said to everyone else, than actually getting a coherent answer to my concern. Though Asking might be able to help me out.

[Credendovidis]

... iffiness ...

I had to look that up. It was new to me. It's now added to my vocabulary!

;)
·

[Capuchin]

I had to look that up. It was new to me. It's now added to my vocabulary!

;)
·

Apologies! It's slang and probably mostly British to boot!

[asking]

I'm more bothered about pointing out the iffiness of what she said to everyone else, than actually getting a coherent answer to my concern. Though Asking might be able to help me out.

:) I was just thinking about that. I assumed Sassy meant 24 hours, rather than 20 minutes. In that case, wouldn't it be 2^72 = 4.7 X 10^21? Of course, that assumes unlimited resources for the bacteria and also thorough waste disposal. (I've used "iffy" most of my life, here in California... )

Iffily,
Asking

[Capuchin]

:) I was just thinking about that. I assumed Sassy meant 24 hours, rather than 20 minutes. In that case, wouldn't it be 2^72 = 4.7 X 10^21? Of course, that assumes unlimited resources for the bacteria and also thorough waste disposal. (I've used "iffy" most of my life, here in California....)

Iffily,
Asking

But that, of course, would be the number of organisms, not the number of generations. I would assume that you just get a generation every 20 minutes, so in fact it would take 95 years to get 2.5 million generations? You would only get 72 generations in 24 hours.

[inthebox]

The Japanese scientists did not perform any miracles. All they did was using an artificial DNA method to store data as compact as possibile.
The ICR misused that Japanese research and the problems they experienced as an argument that for natural DNA a supra-natural "god-creator" had to be in existance. A nonsensical line of [argumentation, of course, and reason for this topic.

:rolleyes:

·

Did they create a model or a functional means of information storage and retrieval?

If it takes intelligent scientists to come up with just a model copying off the original, is the assumption that the complexity required to create the original , which is beyond known natural means, evidence of God?

[WVHiflyer]

Did they create a model or a functional means of information storage and retrieval?

If it takes intelligent scientists to come up with just a model copying off the original, is the assumption that the complexity required to create the original , which is beyond known natural means, evidence of God?

Purely an ASSumption. Esp since it obviously is not beyond natural means. (unless you need a god and don't find nature amazing in itself.)

[asking]

But that, of course, would be the number of organisms, not the number of generations. I would assume that you just get a generation every 20 minutes, so in fact it would take 95 years to get 2.5 million generations? You would only get 72 generations in 24 hours.

Sassy wrote:

bacterium can divide every 20 minute which means if the conditions are right, one bacterium can multiply into billions of bacteria within 24 hours so because bacteria can multiply so quickly, this can be used to simulate eons of time. In just 20 minutes bacterium can have up to 2.5 million genarations.

Hmm. I'm going to side with Sassy on this one. :) From the way she wrote this, I think she meant that in 24 hours a single bacterium can produce up to 2.5 million progeny, even though that isn't literally what she wrote. Actually, it would be much more... if that's what she meant.

I'm not sure I agree with her argument that this simulates eons of time though. If bacteria are just doing what they do, a researcher would just be simulating ideal conditions, hardly a great way to simulate evolution, which usually happens fastest when selection is most harsh--i.e. when things are really bad--or else in very tiny, isolated populations--like 30 birds on a remote oceanic island. But that's just my initial reaction without seeing the study. I'd be interested if she has a reference for these studies, since I always like reading about microevolution studies. They're cool, too.

[asking]

Brian Thomas, of ICR wrote:

... If high-tech equipment is required simply to mimic DNA, then how much more "high tech" must the mind and power of God be for inventing it?

This is an interesting argument. You could say the same about any form of biomimicry. Whenever human technologists steal an idea from the natural world.

But high-tech equipment is also used to do all kinds of things--from controlling washing machines to displaying drawings and type--and we don't then argue that the original must have been the work of God. That is, people who wash clothes by hand or draw or write in cursive are not all Gods. Unless, I've misunderstood the logic of the argument, it's nonsense.

[WVHiflyer]

Another problem with the 'bacteria don't evolve' criticism is what asking touched on - if there's no pressure to evolve major changes then stasis occurs. Why change if it's not needed? Besides, with so many in a bac colony, they tend to cooperate, split the work so the colony's genes survive and a new form would be eliminated.

[michealb]

I decided it's not worth explaining that natural selection takes the place of your intelligent designer much the same way a bowl causes water to form a bowl shape, the environment causes life to form a more complex shapes. I'm not explaining this because as with most creationist your not interested in science you just want to push your religion on the masses regardless of evidence or truth.

[asking]

natural selection takes the place of . . . your intelligent designer much the . . . way a bowl causes water to form a bowl shape, the environment causes life to form a more complex shapes.

Nice.

[Credendovidis]

Did they create a model or a functional means of information storage and retrieval?

The intention was to store sata as compact as possible, and as DNA/RNA is the most compact version of storage (at least it is as far as we know) , they followed a similar path, along DNA lines but not based on any natural existing DNA.

If it takes intelligent scientists to come up with just a model copying off the original, is the assumption that the complexity required to create the original , which is beyond known natural means, evidence of God?

A nonsensical argument. If you ever fly in a commercial airplane, you are flying in a human designed contraption that is based on observation of birds and bats, but did not require any godly assistance or godly participation. Implementing the METHOD of data storage along DNA lines has NOTHING to do with anything that you suggest to be "beyond known natural means, evidence of God" !

The ICR misused that same invalid argumentation in their article, reason why I used that in preparing this topic.

:rolleyes:

·

[asking]

Implementing the METHOD of data storage along DNA lines has NOTHING to do with anything that you suggest to be "beyond known natural means, evidence of God" !

You've given me an idea. I made a different argument--which is that we copy things all the time and don't consider the "originals" works of God. But I also agree that the distinction between a model and "the original" object is a false one. The "model" or copy is not by definition less complex or less real than "the original." The original is older but not necessarily better or more real.

The idea that natural DNA is the "real thing" and artificial DNA is merely an inferior and defective version of the same thing is a philosophical throwback to an earlier way of thinking about the world--an essentialist one. In that view, there is an ideal human and every person in the world is a somewhat defective version of that ideal person. Same for dogs, cats, chairs and trees. There is an ideal form of everything we know.

One of Darwin's major contributions to science was to emphasize the fallacy of that kind of thinking--to show that the very foundation of life is based on there NOT being an ideal form of any living organism, that every form is tentative, every individual a prototype. There is no ideal ideal wolf or hare, no ideal spreading oak tree or swaying grass plant. No ideal human.

It's my opinion that engineers and others with training in sciences more remote from the natural world (sticks, thistles, and dead bugs) tend to have a harder time accepting non essentialist thinking and incorporating it into their thinking about biology than other scientists. Now I'm wondering if religious training also tends to work against understanding that a population of grasshoppers is just that, X number of individuals--not a set of deviations from a norm or ideal. It strikes me that essentialist thinking is at the heart of ICR's argument about this research. That's why it makes perfect sense to them and no sense to someone who understands evolution.

From their perspective, living things are a living witness to God's "perfection" -- in other words an expression of ideal forms. DNA is also an expression of perfection, so any copy of it is, by definition, less than perfect. They are imposing an essentialist template on the world that divides things into the right and the less right.

And that's enough philosophizing for one morning!

[Credendovidis]

From their perspective, living things are a living witness to God's "perfection" -- in other words an expression of ideal forms.

To them that may seem like that. That is why I always emphasize that they BELIEVE that to be true, but I question IF THAT IS INDEED TRUE !

.... so any copy of it is, by definition, less than perfect.

There is no reason why a copy of anything should be less perfect than it's original.
Actually the reality that DNA copying is not perfect indicates that "god" was not involved in the "creation" of the natural DNA process. How could a perfect deity develop an imperfect copying process? Would that not make that "god" also imperfect ?

The same as a perfect deity "creating" good and bad. A perfect being can only "create" perfect things, so "bad" is out, or the deity is not perfect !

And that's enough philosophizing for one morning!

But an excellent post : you earned your morning coffee !

;)

·

[sassyT]

I'm confused here. Maybe someone can help to explain to me. If bacteria divide every 20 minutes, then how can they produce 2.5 million generations in 20 minutes? Surely they produce only one??

And you call yourself a science expert... :rolleyes: